Don't Hate Americans
Editorial
The Post (Lusaka)
May 13, 2003
Lusaka, Zambia
THE people of the United States have nothing to do with the atrocities committed by their government in Iraq.
And we agree with Dr. Kenneth Kaunda that the people of the United States should not be demonised for the war against Iraq; the war should be blamed on President George Bush's administration because they were the ones who engaged it despite protestations by many American and European citizens.
And despite the enormous influence of the media war, there was a growing anti-war that began to manifest itself from the moment of the announcement and preparation of the genocide against the people of Iraq, and has a worthy antecedent in the " Not In Our Name " declaration signed by thousands of the most distinguished artists and intellectuals of the United States, reflecting the rebelliousness, lucidity and spirit of justice.
There's anti-American feeling in the world, but there's absolutely no reason why one should hate the American people and think even of harming them.
As we have observed before, what the world is today witnessing is clearly not liberation but a resurgence of colonialism, fascism and its brutal intent to control the planet.
The war of conquest unleashed against the people of Iraq, with total contempt for world-wide public opinion, including that of the American people, and the community of nations, recalls the fascist intervention in Spain in 1936, which constituted the prelude to World War II.
Don't Hate Americans
Don't Hate Americans
koan wrote: THE people of the United States have nothing to do with the atrocities committed by their government in Iraq.
Wrong. We elected that leader. Now we are responsible for his decisions. If he makes bad ones, we will elect a different leader in three years. If he commits crimes, we will impeach him. What we won't do is abandon him, or disrespect the office of the President of the United States.
As we have observed before, what the world is today witnessing is clearly not liberation but a resurgence of colonialism, fascism and its brutal intent to control the planet.
Thanks for calling our government and our people "fascists" Koan. Oh, I forgot...you never actually posted YOUR opinion of that article, you just posted an inflammatory piece of propaganda without stating any opinion of your own. What's the matter Koan? Cat got your tongue?:)
The war of conquest unleashed against the people of Iraq,
Now you disrespect every American soldier over there by calling them "conquerors."
with total contempt for world-wide public opinion,
Yeah, those British are "just hanging around us" over there. Wait, aren't there any Canadians in Iraq? Well, they're probably just lost.....like you.
recalls the fascist intervention in Spain in 1936, which constituted the prelude to World War II.
Bush is Adolf Hitler? Dosn't Saddam bear more of a resemblance, in both speech and actions? Is this meant to imply that America wants to conquer the world?
Pffft...like that would happen! :rolleyes:
Wrong. We elected that leader. Now we are responsible for his decisions. If he makes bad ones, we will elect a different leader in three years. If he commits crimes, we will impeach him. What we won't do is abandon him, or disrespect the office of the President of the United States.
As we have observed before, what the world is today witnessing is clearly not liberation but a resurgence of colonialism, fascism and its brutal intent to control the planet.
Thanks for calling our government and our people "fascists" Koan. Oh, I forgot...you never actually posted YOUR opinion of that article, you just posted an inflammatory piece of propaganda without stating any opinion of your own. What's the matter Koan? Cat got your tongue?:)
The war of conquest unleashed against the people of Iraq,
Now you disrespect every American soldier over there by calling them "conquerors."
with total contempt for world-wide public opinion,
Yeah, those British are "just hanging around us" over there. Wait, aren't there any Canadians in Iraq? Well, they're probably just lost.....like you.
recalls the fascist intervention in Spain in 1936, which constituted the prelude to World War II.
Bush is Adolf Hitler? Dosn't Saddam bear more of a resemblance, in both speech and actions? Is this meant to imply that America wants to conquer the world?
Pffft...like that would happen! :rolleyes:
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
Don't Hate Americans
Koan, isn't your title of this thread completely misleading? You say , "Don't hate Americans." Then you post an Anti-American Hate Speech.
Please change the title of this thread to:
"The Evil Americans Want to Destroy the World."
Please change the title of this thread to:
"The Evil Americans Want to Destroy the World."
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
Don't Hate Americans
What a completely back-handed, two-faced load of crap. Nice effort, koan...failed miserably, but nice effort.
[FONT=Arial Black]I hope you cherish this sweet way of life, and I hope you know that it comes with a price.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
Don't Hate Americans
The article came from (as the link shows) an American based website called notinourname.net
They posted it on their website because of the concern over growing negative opinion in the world of the country of America and that is the same reason I posted it here. It clearly points out that there are massive protests of American people against the actions of their government. I believe that it is important to let people who angry about the war know that they shouldn't hate the citizens of America for a war that is not even supported by half the population anymore. The idea here is to reduce hostility and the threat of more terrorist attacks against the civilians who live in the US.
Whether you like it or not many people in the rest of the world , as well as citizens of the US, are quite upset about the war. The actions of the government have, in many people's opinion, put their own country at great risk. Am I such a bad person because I am worried about the safety of a country where I have friends? Demonize me if you want. 6 out of 10 Americans do not support the war. Many other countries are 90% against the war. I think the title is completely appropriate.
They posted it on their website because of the concern over growing negative opinion in the world of the country of America and that is the same reason I posted it here. It clearly points out that there are massive protests of American people against the actions of their government. I believe that it is important to let people who angry about the war know that they shouldn't hate the citizens of America for a war that is not even supported by half the population anymore. The idea here is to reduce hostility and the threat of more terrorist attacks against the civilians who live in the US.
Whether you like it or not many people in the rest of the world , as well as citizens of the US, are quite upset about the war. The actions of the government have, in many people's opinion, put their own country at great risk. Am I such a bad person because I am worried about the safety of a country where I have friends? Demonize me if you want. 6 out of 10 Americans do not support the war. Many other countries are 90% against the war. I think the title is completely appropriate.
Don't Hate Americans
koan wrote: I believe that it is important to let people who angry about the war know that they shouldn't hate the citizens of America for a war that is not even supported by half the population anymore.
You might be right, but that's not what you posted. Your article flames everything American and assumes that the people in America have no control over their government. That makes us either incompetent or negligent.
Neither is true...we elected Bush and he represents us. For better or worse. Trying to separate the leader of the country from the people is not possible in a democracy. We elected Bush by a majority, that means that the majority of Americans feel that his policies and his party's policies were the right ones at the time.
The idea here is to reduce hostility and the threat of more terrorist attacks against the civilians who live in the US.
No...the idea to to chicken out and pretend that our leader really isn't our leader. Abandoning our elected leader because of fear of retaliation for electing him isn't just cowardly, it's traitorous.
Whether you like it or not many people in the rest of the world , as well as citizens of the US, are quite upset about the war.
Well tough. I was pretty upset when I heard about Saddam gassing the Kurds. I was pretty upset when his troops rolled into Kuwait and began exterminating the local populace. Let's try to remember who the real bad guy is here, okay?!! I'm sick of people saying, "The U.S. should do something about it", and then when we do, it's "Ooo they are such bullies!" Double standards, Koan, double standards. Or are you trying to say you liked Saddam and agreed with his despicable actions?
The actions of the government have, in many people's opinion, put their own country at great risk.
What greater risk? You mean like maybe they might slam into our buildings with airplanes?! Wait...that already happened! Let's get this straight...everything that has progressed since 9/11 is due to the actions of those terrorists!
If they didn't want us to wage war on them, if they didn't want us to dig out their ratholes (and spiderholes) and drag them out into the sunlight to die, then they should never have attacked us.
Afghanistan and Iraq both fall under the heading "self-defense". Enough said.
Am I such a bad person because I am worried about the safety of a country where I have friends?
No you're not bad, Koan. Just a little deluded, that's all. You think that taking action means that we will have to face additional attacks and you're scared of that.
Not me. I said it before and I'll say it again, I will not let fear decide my course of actions or control my life. If a man shoots a friend of yours, do you decide to never leave your house again, because he might shoot you?! No!! Most emphatically NO!!
You go out, contact the police, and end his reign of terror. You make sure that he will never get the chance to destory any more lives ever again! Then you go about your life again, fearlessly.
That's what Afghanistan and Iraq are about, Koan.
It's about good versus evil. WE are the good.
You might be right, but that's not what you posted. Your article flames everything American and assumes that the people in America have no control over their government. That makes us either incompetent or negligent.
Neither is true...we elected Bush and he represents us. For better or worse. Trying to separate the leader of the country from the people is not possible in a democracy. We elected Bush by a majority, that means that the majority of Americans feel that his policies and his party's policies were the right ones at the time.
The idea here is to reduce hostility and the threat of more terrorist attacks against the civilians who live in the US.
No...the idea to to chicken out and pretend that our leader really isn't our leader. Abandoning our elected leader because of fear of retaliation for electing him isn't just cowardly, it's traitorous.
Whether you like it or not many people in the rest of the world , as well as citizens of the US, are quite upset about the war.
Well tough. I was pretty upset when I heard about Saddam gassing the Kurds. I was pretty upset when his troops rolled into Kuwait and began exterminating the local populace. Let's try to remember who the real bad guy is here, okay?!! I'm sick of people saying, "The U.S. should do something about it", and then when we do, it's "Ooo they are such bullies!" Double standards, Koan, double standards. Or are you trying to say you liked Saddam and agreed with his despicable actions?
The actions of the government have, in many people's opinion, put their own country at great risk.
What greater risk? You mean like maybe they might slam into our buildings with airplanes?! Wait...that already happened! Let's get this straight...everything that has progressed since 9/11 is due to the actions of those terrorists!
If they didn't want us to wage war on them, if they didn't want us to dig out their ratholes (and spiderholes) and drag them out into the sunlight to die, then they should never have attacked us.
Afghanistan and Iraq both fall under the heading "self-defense". Enough said.
Am I such a bad person because I am worried about the safety of a country where I have friends?
No you're not bad, Koan. Just a little deluded, that's all. You think that taking action means that we will have to face additional attacks and you're scared of that.
Not me. I said it before and I'll say it again, I will not let fear decide my course of actions or control my life. If a man shoots a friend of yours, do you decide to never leave your house again, because he might shoot you?! No!! Most emphatically NO!!
You go out, contact the police, and end his reign of terror. You make sure that he will never get the chance to destory any more lives ever again! Then you go about your life again, fearlessly.
That's what Afghanistan and Iraq are about, Koan.
It's about good versus evil. WE are the good.
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
Don't Hate Americans
Jives wrote: Neither is true...we elected Bush and he represents us. For better or worse. Trying to separate the leader of the country from the people is not possible in a democracy. We elected Bush by a majority, that means that the majority of Americans feel that his policies and his party's policies were the right ones at the time.That would be rather more practical if there were a significant difference of policy on the matter between your parties. From within your system you may see "democrat" and "republican" as opposites, from outside they do look a lot like inbred twins. But if both "sides" aver that they would both have acted similarly, where did the US electorate get the chance to disavow themselves from the madness?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Don't Hate Americans
Jives wrote: I was pretty upset when I heard about Saddam gassing the Kurds.
When did you hear about that Jives? It happened in 1988. And no one seemed to mind too much at the time. In 1988 just after that massacre Dow Chemical sold $1.5 million worth of pesticides to Iraq despite concerns that they could be used as chemical warfare agents. The US senate had unanimously passed sanctions against Iraq but it was killed by the White House. In 1989 Senator Dole met with Saddam and called him "an intelligent man" insisting there was real "potential for improving our relationships". As to the actual events of 1988, the US illegally sold $30 million in arms to Iran. (remember Iran/Contra affair?) The US sold him the helicopters used to drop the gas too. The gassing was mentioned in the news 20 times in 1989 and 145 times in March 2003. Fifteen years later the US is outraged.
-information taken from The Exception To The Rules by Amy Goodman, reporter.
I'm sick of people saying, "The U.S. should do something about it"
a lot of people are just saying "The US should stop funding terrorists" it results in a situation called "blowback".
The CIA definition of blowback - when US support for repressive militaries or armed insurgencies somewhere else boomerangs back at the United States.
Or are you trying to say you liked Saddam and agreed with his despicable actions?
Let's avoid black and white thinking here. Your a teacher, Jives. You are capable of seeing the little shades of grey in there. This is propaganda...you are trying to imply that I liked Saddam and that is just ridiculous.
What greater risk? You mean like maybe they might slam into our buildings with airplanes?! Wait...that already happened! Let's get this straight...everything that has progressed since 9/11 is due to the actions of those terrorists!
If they didn't want us to wage war on them, if they didn't want us to dig out their ratholes (and spiderholes) and drag them out into the sunlight to die, then they should never have attacked us.
Afghanistan and Iraq both fall under the heading "self-defense". Enough said.
You say that the Iraq war is connected to 9/11 and then go on to tell me that I am delusional. I'm shocked.
This is not about Good vs Evil, Jives. I think you better figure out what it really is about. You don't have to believe everything I say but ...oh my giddy aunt!...would you at least look into the matter?
When did you hear about that Jives? It happened in 1988. And no one seemed to mind too much at the time. In 1988 just after that massacre Dow Chemical sold $1.5 million worth of pesticides to Iraq despite concerns that they could be used as chemical warfare agents. The US senate had unanimously passed sanctions against Iraq but it was killed by the White House. In 1989 Senator Dole met with Saddam and called him "an intelligent man" insisting there was real "potential for improving our relationships". As to the actual events of 1988, the US illegally sold $30 million in arms to Iran. (remember Iran/Contra affair?) The US sold him the helicopters used to drop the gas too. The gassing was mentioned in the news 20 times in 1989 and 145 times in March 2003. Fifteen years later the US is outraged.
-information taken from The Exception To The Rules by Amy Goodman, reporter.
I'm sick of people saying, "The U.S. should do something about it"
a lot of people are just saying "The US should stop funding terrorists" it results in a situation called "blowback".
The CIA definition of blowback - when US support for repressive militaries or armed insurgencies somewhere else boomerangs back at the United States.
Or are you trying to say you liked Saddam and agreed with his despicable actions?
Let's avoid black and white thinking here. Your a teacher, Jives. You are capable of seeing the little shades of grey in there. This is propaganda...you are trying to imply that I liked Saddam and that is just ridiculous.
What greater risk? You mean like maybe they might slam into our buildings with airplanes?! Wait...that already happened! Let's get this straight...everything that has progressed since 9/11 is due to the actions of those terrorists!
If they didn't want us to wage war on them, if they didn't want us to dig out their ratholes (and spiderholes) and drag them out into the sunlight to die, then they should never have attacked us.
Afghanistan and Iraq both fall under the heading "self-defense". Enough said.
You say that the Iraq war is connected to 9/11 and then go on to tell me that I am delusional. I'm shocked.
This is not about Good vs Evil, Jives. I think you better figure out what it really is about. You don't have to believe everything I say but ...oh my giddy aunt!...would you at least look into the matter?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Don't Hate Americans
koan wrote: The war of conquest unleashed against the people of Iraq, with total contempt for world-wide public opinion, including that of the American people, and the community of nations, recalls the fascist intervention in Spain in 1936, which constituted the prelude to World War II.
A girl once told me that she didn't hate me, only my personality. Even the subjects of the crown are subject in name only now. President Bush is not King George the Junior. With few exceptions, he cannot unilaterally do didley {look it up} without approval from Congress. All the people involved are in places of authority because the majority of American citizens who cared enough to express an opinion gave them permission to exercise that authority. So don't claim that you really don't hate the USA, just its government. Such tripe is beneath mature adults.
I almost started to rant about how Canada is the de facto 52nd state and other such ... but that's beneath mature adults, too.
A girl once told me that she didn't hate me, only my personality. Even the subjects of the crown are subject in name only now. President Bush is not King George the Junior. With few exceptions, he cannot unilaterally do didley {look it up} without approval from Congress. All the people involved are in places of authority because the majority of American citizens who cared enough to express an opinion gave them permission to exercise that authority. So don't claim that you really don't hate the USA, just its government. Such tripe is beneath mature adults.
I almost started to rant about how Canada is the de facto 52nd state and other such ... but that's beneath mature adults, too.
Don't Hate Americans
Accountable wrote: All the people involved are in places of authority because the majority of American citizens who cared enough to express an opinion gave them permission to exercise that authority. So don't claim that you really don't hate the USA, just its government. Such tripe is beneath mature adults.I might just as well have not posted, perhaps. If you're going to continue down that path, you have to deal with this and not just pretend it never got posted:
That would be rather more practical if there were a significant difference of policy on the matter between your parties. From within your system you may see "democrat" and "republican" as opposites, from outside they do look a lot like inbred twins. But if both "sides" aver that they would both have acted similarly, where did the US electorate get the chance to disavow themselves from the madness?
That would be rather more practical if there were a significant difference of policy on the matter between your parties. From within your system you may see "democrat" and "republican" as opposites, from outside they do look a lot like inbred twins. But if both "sides" aver that they would both have acted similarly, where did the US electorate get the chance to disavow themselves from the madness?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Don't Hate Americans
Oh, I agree with you thoroughly, Spot, that the two major American parties are twin wolves in slightly different sheep's clothing. In fact, it's very worthy of a separate thread.
I just get tired of neighbors throwing stones, no matter how prettily they're wrapped.
I just get tired of neighbors throwing stones, no matter how prettily they're wrapped.
Don't Hate Americans
Accountable wrote: Oh, I agree with you thoroughly, Spot, that the two major American parties are twin wolves in slightly different sheep's clothing. In fact, it's very worthy of a separate thread.
I just get tired of neighbors throwing stones, no matter how prettily they're wrapped.It's not separate thread material, it's central to this point. And her wrappings are immaterial.
Congress, you mentioned, gave the Presidency power to act independently over Iraq - or is it for the duration of the War on Terror? I'm not sure of the wording. They rubber-stamped PATRIOT at the same time, for the same reason. They did this about 4 days into the crisis, and anyone saying no would have been howled down by the press. You call that representation? I call it Stalinism, more like. Congress cracked under the pressure.
I just get tired of neighbors throwing stones, no matter how prettily they're wrapped.It's not separate thread material, it's central to this point. And her wrappings are immaterial.
Congress, you mentioned, gave the Presidency power to act independently over Iraq - or is it for the duration of the War on Terror? I'm not sure of the wording. They rubber-stamped PATRIOT at the same time, for the same reason. They did this about 4 days into the crisis, and anyone saying no would have been howled down by the press. You call that representation? I call it Stalinism, more like. Congress cracked under the pressure.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Don't Hate Americans
spot wrote: It's not separate thread material, it's central to this point. And her wrappings are immaterial.
Congress, you mentioned, gave the Presidency power to act independently over Iraq - or is it for the duration of the War on Terror? I'm not sure of the wording. They rubber-stamped PATRIOT at the same time, for the same reason. They did this about 4 days into the crisis, and anyone saying no would have been howled down by the press. You call that representation? I call it Stalinism, more like. Congress cracked under the pressure.
Inadequate representation by elected representatives. I'm certain it's not a foreign concept in the UK government, is it?
Congress, you mentioned, gave the Presidency power to act independently over Iraq - or is it for the duration of the War on Terror? I'm not sure of the wording. They rubber-stamped PATRIOT at the same time, for the same reason. They did this about 4 days into the crisis, and anyone saying no would have been howled down by the press. You call that representation? I call it Stalinism, more like. Congress cracked under the pressure.
Inadequate representation by elected representatives. I'm certain it's not a foreign concept in the UK government, is it?
Don't Hate Americans
Accountable wrote: Inadequate representation by elected representatives. I'm certain it's not a foreign concept in the UK government, is it?How irrelevant to the topic at hand, that you should ask. As it happens, and irrelevantly, yes, it would be a foreign concept to us.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Don't Hate Americans
spot wrote: How irrelevant to the topic at hand, that you should ask. As it happens, and irrelevantly, yes, it would be a foreign concept to us.
Glad to hear it! I knew you and I were of the same cloth. Now let's you and I together applaud my president and your prime minister as they represent us in leading this war against terrorists!
Glad to hear it! I knew you and I were of the same cloth. Now let's you and I together applaud my president and your prime minister as they represent us in leading this war against terrorists!
Don't Hate Americans
flopstock wrote: ... you should be chewing the ass of the people 'against' who couldn't be bothered to vote.You have, as a people, a most unsavoury style of expression. I've noticed this before. Excuse me one moment while I gargle.
The "people who ran in the elections" weren't in the election I brought up, presumably? the Presidential one? You'll need to tell me which election you refer to, I think.
Beyond that, we can ignore the non-mainline-party candidates, presumably, as being unelectable? You're saying that the Dems who stood on an anti-war platform lost to Reps, and the Reps who stood on an anti-war platform lost to Dems? Is it not likely that the ones who stood on an anti-war platform were the outsiders? That they were already likely to lose and thought what the heck, give it a go?
I don't see the US electorate having been given a viable anti-war platform, then. Not unless you have a different election in mind.
The "people who ran in the elections" weren't in the election I brought up, presumably? the Presidential one? You'll need to tell me which election you refer to, I think.
Beyond that, we can ignore the non-mainline-party candidates, presumably, as being unelectable? You're saying that the Dems who stood on an anti-war platform lost to Reps, and the Reps who stood on an anti-war platform lost to Dems? Is it not likely that the ones who stood on an anti-war platform were the outsiders? That they were already likely to lose and thought what the heck, give it a go?
I don't see the US electorate having been given a viable anti-war platform, then. Not unless you have a different election in mind.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Don't Hate Americans
flopstock wrote: Oh geez, guys, give a foreigner a break will you? And no I don't mean Koan.
What I saw in that article was an attempt to stop the attacks against civilians and people not in a position of authority. The guy tried. Can't we even give him that? Can you at least see that while he may not understand us and 'our' representatives, he may understand the way we are viewed. And he's not reasoning based on 'our' view, but rather , theirs.
Our outrage last week was because those assholes were attacking innocent civilians. And people, even here, were justifying the action because our government is at war.
I agree he could have stopped there. He didn't. But he did make an attempt at what he perceives as 'calming' the attacks against civilians.
diane
p.s.
although, now that you mention it, i didn't view koan posting it as an attempt to imflame. did you koan? did i miss the real point of the post?
I think you are the only person who really got it. Flopstock. I'm so glad. I couldn't figure out why everyone was so mad a foreign journalist is saying not to attack or blame you for what a lot of people are mad about. Perhaps it's because they missed it was a foreign journalist representing a common viewpoint from outside of the country?
What I saw in that article was an attempt to stop the attacks against civilians and people not in a position of authority. The guy tried. Can't we even give him that? Can you at least see that while he may not understand us and 'our' representatives, he may understand the way we are viewed. And he's not reasoning based on 'our' view, but rather , theirs.
Our outrage last week was because those assholes were attacking innocent civilians. And people, even here, were justifying the action because our government is at war.
I agree he could have stopped there. He didn't. But he did make an attempt at what he perceives as 'calming' the attacks against civilians.
diane
p.s.
although, now that you mention it, i didn't view koan posting it as an attempt to imflame. did you koan? did i miss the real point of the post?
I think you are the only person who really got it. Flopstock. I'm so glad. I couldn't figure out why everyone was so mad a foreign journalist is saying not to attack or blame you for what a lot of people are mad about. Perhaps it's because they missed it was a foreign journalist representing a common viewpoint from outside of the country?
Don't Hate Americans
Accountable wrote: Glad to hear it! I knew you and I were of the same cloth. Now let's you and I together applaud my president and your prime minister as they represent us in leading this war against terrorists!Your President, Sir, can go and boil his head. He does about as much for me as Nana Mouskouri did, and she had the advantage over him of earnestness, an integrity when it came to Marbles, and a command of the English language beyond the comprehension of your Head of State.
I didn't vote for my Prime Minister. I voted for my constituency ex-Member of Parliament, who happened to be of the same Party as he. When the Prime Minister loses the confidence of that Party, he will gracefully retire to the back bench.
There is no War against Terrorists. There is a great deal of pillage and mayhem being spread piecemeal around the globe by nations which should know better.
I didn't vote for my Prime Minister. I voted for my constituency ex-Member of Parliament, who happened to be of the same Party as he. When the Prime Minister loses the confidence of that Party, he will gracefully retire to the back bench.
There is no War against Terrorists. There is a great deal of pillage and mayhem being spread piecemeal around the globe by nations which should know better.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Don't Hate Americans
flopstock wrote: Howard Dean was a democratic frontrunner in the primaries ( where we choose our final ticket to run against the opposition). He was against the war. He also acted like a fruitloop in IOWA i believe. In the end he was defeated.
And i like to express myself like that, just for you- spot. I know you secretly love it..:sneaky:So. Pardon me while I find my nit-picking hat for a moment.
Howard Dean was an anti-war candidate. His electorate - I may be wrong here - his electorate was solely registered Democrats? And only some states were allowed to vote for or against him? And one "yeeeaaaahhh" Dean Scream is enough to invalidate the anti-war camp for a four-year period?
I'm not sure I call that a mandate for the War Parties.
And i like to express myself like that, just for you- spot. I know you secretly love it..:sneaky:So. Pardon me while I find my nit-picking hat for a moment.
Howard Dean was an anti-war candidate. His electorate - I may be wrong here - his electorate was solely registered Democrats? And only some states were allowed to vote for or against him? And one "yeeeaaaahhh" Dean Scream is enough to invalidate the anti-war camp for a four-year period?
I'm not sure I call that a mandate for the War Parties.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Don't Hate Americans
spot wrote: I didn't vote for my Prime Minister. I voted for my constituency ex-Member of Parliament, who happened to be of the same Party as he. When the Prime Minister loses the confidence of that Party, he will gracefully retire to the back bench..
Nice tap dance. You have music on when you type? You voted for your country's representation. The rules just happen to be that an elected representative elects the top representative. Being once removed doesn't remove you from responsibility.
There is no War against Terrorists. There is a great deal of pillage and mayhem being spread piecemeal around the globe by nations which should know better.
No war against terrorists?? I guess there are no terrorists either, only freedom fighters or other such tripe? I did notice that the BBC is loathe to call your home-grown spades spades; they preferred the more docile term "bombers," as if it were a hobby that got out of hand.
The representatives you and I voted for are leading our respective nations in a war against terrorists who would laugh mightily at our arguments as they cut our heads off. Thanks to their efforts, we will both be able to leisurely decide if we like the representation we are getting and vote to keep or change it. God bless America and her closest ally, Great Britain.
Nice tap dance. You have music on when you type? You voted for your country's representation. The rules just happen to be that an elected representative elects the top representative. Being once removed doesn't remove you from responsibility.
There is no War against Terrorists. There is a great deal of pillage and mayhem being spread piecemeal around the globe by nations which should know better.
No war against terrorists?? I guess there are no terrorists either, only freedom fighters or other such tripe? I did notice that the BBC is loathe to call your home-grown spades spades; they preferred the more docile term "bombers," as if it were a hobby that got out of hand.
The representatives you and I voted for are leading our respective nations in a war against terrorists who would laugh mightily at our arguments as they cut our heads off. Thanks to their efforts, we will both be able to leisurely decide if we like the representation we are getting and vote to keep or change it. God bless America and her closest ally, Great Britain.
Don't Hate Americans
Not in my name, dear boy. Not in my name. Subjects of Her Majesty are not constrained to expressing their opinion merely at the moment of exercising their franchise.
I posted to correct your use of language, I recognise that we differ in various opinions. War is a legal condition. All this "War on Drugs", "War on Terrorists", "War on Illiteracy" is metaphor, not law. In the sense that you and your President are trying to employ the word, it is an abuse.
I posted to correct your use of language, I recognise that we differ in various opinions. War is a legal condition. All this "War on Drugs", "War on Terrorists", "War on Illiteracy" is metaphor, not law. In the sense that you and your President are trying to employ the word, it is an abuse.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Don't Hate Americans
flopstock wrote: :yh_rotfl
I liked the rest of your post, but OMG I loved this!!
Thanks. I'm kinda proud of it myself. :-6
I liked the rest of your post, but OMG I loved this!!
Thanks. I'm kinda proud of it myself. :-6
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Don't Hate Americans
spot wrote: Not in my name, dear boy. Not in my name. Subjects of Her Majesty are not constrained to expressing their opinion merely at the moment of exercising their franchise.
And your point is ... ?
I posted to correct your use of language, I recognise that we differ in various opinions. War is a legal condition. All this "War on Drugs", "War on Terrorists", "War on Illiteracy" is metaphor, not law. In the sense that you and your President are trying to employ the word, it is an abuse.
It's self-serving at best to point out perceived flaws without offering suggestions to fix said flaws. What word would you prefer?
And your point is ... ?
I posted to correct your use of language, I recognise that we differ in various opinions. War is a legal condition. All this "War on Drugs", "War on Terrorists", "War on Illiteracy" is metaphor, not law. In the sense that you and your President are trying to employ the word, it is an abuse.
It's self-serving at best to point out perceived flaws without offering suggestions to fix said flaws. What word would you prefer?
Don't Hate Americans
Accountable wrote: And your point is ... ?That being once removed doesn't remove me from responsibility.
Accountable wrote: It's self-serving at best to point out perceived flaws without offering suggestions to fix said flaws. What word would you prefer?War-crime. The more I read Ann and John Tusa's "The Nuremberg Trial", the more parallels I see. I strongly commend it to anyone interested in the subject.
Accountable wrote: It's self-serving at best to point out perceived flaws without offering suggestions to fix said flaws. What word would you prefer?War-crime. The more I read Ann and John Tusa's "The Nuremberg Trial", the more parallels I see. I strongly commend it to anyone interested in the subject.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
greydeadhead
- Posts: 1045
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 8:52 am
Don't Hate Americans
Well.. as far as an anti-war candidate from one of the two major parties, Kerrys pathetic attempts to paint himself as a pacifist war hero were not accepted by the voters. That combined with the fact that he voted for the resolution to invade Iraq helped create the image of a indecisive candidate.
As far as Howard the coward.. the lack of national exposure, combined with a lack of experience doomed his campaign the minute he left the northeast. The I have a Scream speech was just the final blow to a doomed campaign. And believe me.. I know all about him.. we are still digging our from the his anti-business, tax and spend policies here in Vermont.
As far as Howard the coward.. the lack of national exposure, combined with a lack of experience doomed his campaign the minute he left the northeast. The I have a Scream speech was just the final blow to a doomed campaign. And believe me.. I know all about him.. we are still digging our from the his anti-business, tax and spend policies here in Vermont.
Feed your spirit by living near it -- Magic Hat Brewery bottle cap
Don't Hate Americans
greydeadhead, can I take that as agreement that the American electorate has had no anti-war Presidential candidate offered to it?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
greydeadhead
- Posts: 1045
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 8:52 am
Don't Hate Americans
As far as the two major parties offering a totally anti-war candiate..IMHO neither of them did. Some of the fringe parties ran on an antiwar platform, but none of them garnered enuff of the vote to be of consequence. Now Spot.. did you have any viable anti-war candidates in your elections. Mind you I am nor overly familiar with your form of government.
Feed your spirit by living near it -- Magic Hat Brewery bottle cap
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Don't Hate Americans
spot wrote: That being once removed doesn't remove me from responsibility.
Granted, I didn't mention the fact that we citizens have an ongoing responsibility to hold our elected representatives feet to the fire because I'd mistakenly considered that a given. But he's still your indirectly elected representative until you indirectly elect another - in your name.
War-crime. The more I read Ann and John Tusa's "The Nuremberg Trial", the more parallels I see. I strongly commend it to anyone interested in the subject.
And what about the word "terrorist"? is that an adequate word for the subject matter?
Granted, I didn't mention the fact that we citizens have an ongoing responsibility to hold our elected representatives feet to the fire because I'd mistakenly considered that a given. But he's still your indirectly elected representative until you indirectly elect another - in your name.
War-crime. The more I read Ann and John Tusa's "The Nuremberg Trial", the more parallels I see. I strongly commend it to anyone interested in the subject.
And what about the word "terrorist"? is that an adequate word for the subject matter?
Don't Hate Americans
greydeadhead wrote: As far as the two major parties offering a totally anti-war candiate..IMHO neither of them did. Some of the fringe parties ran on an antiwar platform, but none of them garnered enuff of the vote to be of consequence. Now Spot.. did you have any viable anti-war candidates in your elections. Mind you I am nor overly familiar with your form of government.Then to be honest, it was a very careless question for you to ask.
The entire Liberal Democrat Party has consistently voted against the presence of UK troops in Iraq. They have 62 Members of Parliament (MPs) in the House of Commons. The Labour Party has a significant anti-war camp. If you check http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/dreammp.php?id=219 you'll find around 80 MPs who fairly consistently voted against the presence of UK troops in Iraq in all 16 relevant divisions. Some of them are even Conservative and Unionist MPs.
The entire Liberal Democrat Party has consistently voted against the presence of UK troops in Iraq. They have 62 Members of Parliament (MPs) in the House of Commons. The Labour Party has a significant anti-war camp. If you check http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/dreammp.php?id=219 you'll find around 80 MPs who fairly consistently voted against the presence of UK troops in Iraq in all 16 relevant divisions. Some of them are even Conservative and Unionist MPs.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Don't Hate Americans
spot wrote: Then to be honest, it was a very careless question for you to ask.
How dare you!?
Someone asks you an informational question and you consider that careless? It's careless to trust that you might have information we may not have? Are we to always consider you an adversary? I thought this was banter, not battle.
How dare you!?
Someone asks you an informational question and you consider that careless? It's careless to trust that you might have information we may not have? Are we to always consider you an adversary? I thought this was banter, not battle.
Don't Hate Americans
Accountable wrote: And what about the word "terrorist"? is that an adequate word for the subject matter?Do you mean "are there terrorists out there"? Yes, of course there are. If you mean "is terrorism an acceptable justification for our being in Iraq", then no. By all means frame your own question if those aren't close enough, I'm merely trying to understand your scattergun query.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Don't Hate Americans
spot wrote: Do you mean "are there terrorists out there"? Yes, of course there are. If you mean "is terrorism an acceptable justification for our being in Iraq", then no. By all means frame your own question if those aren't close enough, I'm merely trying to understand your scattergun query.
I'm simply asking about terms in my previous post. You prefer war-crime to war; I'm asking if the term "terrorist" or "terrorism" is acceptable to you in the context of that same post.
I'm simply asking about terms in my previous post. You prefer war-crime to war; I'm asking if the term "terrorist" or "terrorism" is acceptable to you in the context of that same post.
Don't Hate Americans
Accountable wrote: How dare you!?
Someone asks you an informational question and you consider that careless? It's careless to trust that you might have information we may not have? Are we to always consider you an adversary? I thought this was banter, not battle.The question-and-answer style you have adopted in this thread resembles that of a lawyer cross-examining a witness. It's axiomatic, at least in an English court, that no barrister of any note would put a question to which he does not know the answer, hence "Then to be honest, it was a very careless question for you to ask". If you feel that this thread has no resemblance to cross-examination, perhaps we visit different courtrooms.
Someone asks you an informational question and you consider that careless? It's careless to trust that you might have information we may not have? Are we to always consider you an adversary? I thought this was banter, not battle.The question-and-answer style you have adopted in this thread resembles that of a lawyer cross-examining a witness. It's axiomatic, at least in an English court, that no barrister of any note would put a question to which he does not know the answer, hence "Then to be honest, it was a very careless question for you to ask". If you feel that this thread has no resemblance to cross-examination, perhaps we visit different courtrooms.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Don't Hate Americans
Accountable wrote: I'm simply asking about terms in my previous post. You prefer war-crime to war; I'm asking if the term "terrorist" or "terrorism" is acceptable to you in the context of that same post.There are 40 posts in this thread, and I'm quite at a loss to know which "previous" you mean. Unravel the question, expand it into something self-contained, and I'll try to accomodate you.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Don't Hate Americans
flopstock wrote: heheheh...this kind of post normally means that spot is on the ropes...;)You're telling me you understood the question? Well, I'm buggered if I did. That was just vapid hot air, from someone who ran out of breath half an hour ago.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Don't Hate Americans
spot wrote: There are 40 posts in this thread, and I'm quite at a loss to know which "previous" you mean. Unravel the question, expand it into something self-contained, and I'll try to accomodate you.
Allow me:
Post #24
Accountable wrote: The representatives you and I voted for are leading our respective nations in a war against terrorists who would laugh mightily at our arguments as they cut our heads off. Thanks to their efforts, we will both be able to leisurely decide if we like the representation we are getting and vote to keep or change it. God bless America and her closest ally, Great Britain.
Post #25
spot wrote: I posted to correct your use of language, I recognise that we differ in various opinions. War is a legal condition. All this "War on Drugs", "War on Terrorists", "War on Illiteracy" is metaphor, not law. In the sense that you and your President are trying to employ the word, it is an abuse.
Post#28
Accountable wrote: It's self-serving at best to point out perceived flaws without offering suggestions to fix said flaws. What word would you prefer?
Post #29
spot wrote: War-crime. The more I read Ann and John Tusa's "The Nuremberg Trial", the more parallels I see. I strongly commend it to anyone interested in the subject.
Post #33
spot wrote: And what about the word "terrorist"? is that an adequate word for the subject matter?
Allow me:
Post #24
Accountable wrote: The representatives you and I voted for are leading our respective nations in a war against terrorists who would laugh mightily at our arguments as they cut our heads off. Thanks to their efforts, we will both be able to leisurely decide if we like the representation we are getting and vote to keep or change it. God bless America and her closest ally, Great Britain.
Post #25
spot wrote: I posted to correct your use of language, I recognise that we differ in various opinions. War is a legal condition. All this "War on Drugs", "War on Terrorists", "War on Illiteracy" is metaphor, not law. In the sense that you and your President are trying to employ the word, it is an abuse.
Post#28
Accountable wrote: It's self-serving at best to point out perceived flaws without offering suggestions to fix said flaws. What word would you prefer?
Post #29
spot wrote: War-crime. The more I read Ann and John Tusa's "The Nuremberg Trial", the more parallels I see. I strongly commend it to anyone interested in the subject.
Post #33
spot wrote: And what about the word "terrorist"? is that an adequate word for the subject matter?
Don't Hate Americans
Then, in that context of those several posts, no. That's not fighting terrorism, that's generating a monumental backlash from previously peaceful non-militant individuals. Their coalescence into an entity you can regard as your enemy is entirely the doing of this foreign adventurism.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Don't Hate Americans
spot wrote: Then, in that context of those several posts, no. That's not fighting terrorism, that's generating a monumental backlash from previously peaceful non-militant individuals. Their coalescence into an entity you can regard as your enemy is entirely the doing of this foreign adventurism.
*sigh*
From Post #37
Accountable wrote: I'm simply asking about terms [my emphasis]in my previous post. You prefer war-crime to war; I'm asking if the term "terrorist" or "terrorism" is acceptable to you in the context of that same post.
That previous post being Post #24
Accountable wrote: The representatives you and I voted for are leading our respective nations in a war against terrorists who would laugh mightily at our arguments as they cut our heads off. Thanks to their efforts, we will both be able to leisurely decide if we like the representation we are getting and vote to keep or change it. God bless America and her closest ally, Great Britain.
In an effort to keep you focused, I ask again in a slightly edited form: Is the term "terrorists" in the context of the sentence "The representatives you and I voted for are leading our respective nations in a war against terrorists who would laugh mightily at our arguments as they cut our heads off," acceptable to you?
I might infer that you prefer "previously peaceful non-militant individuals," but I want to be certain.
*sigh*
From Post #37
Accountable wrote: I'm simply asking about terms [my emphasis]in my previous post. You prefer war-crime to war; I'm asking if the term "terrorist" or "terrorism" is acceptable to you in the context of that same post.
That previous post being Post #24
Accountable wrote: The representatives you and I voted for are leading our respective nations in a war against terrorists who would laugh mightily at our arguments as they cut our heads off. Thanks to their efforts, we will both be able to leisurely decide if we like the representation we are getting and vote to keep or change it. God bless America and her closest ally, Great Britain.
In an effort to keep you focused, I ask again in a slightly edited form: Is the term "terrorists" in the context of the sentence "The representatives you and I voted for are leading our respective nations in a war against terrorists who would laugh mightily at our arguments as they cut our heads off," acceptable to you?
I might infer that you prefer "previously peaceful non-militant individuals," but I want to be certain.
-
greydeadhead
- Posts: 1045
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 8:52 am
Don't Hate Americans
spot wrote: Then to be honest, it was a very careless question for you to ask.
The entire Liberal Democrat Party has consistently voted against the presence of UK troops in Iraq. They have 62 Members of Parliament (MPs) in the House of Commons. The Labour Party has a significant anti-war camp. If you check http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/dreammp.php?id=219 you'll find around 80 MPs who fairly consistently voted against the presence of UK troops in Iraq in all 16 relevant divisions. Some of them are even Conservative and Unionist MPs.
Hey Spot..
Sorry I took so long to get back to you.. but then again, I do have a life that doesn't include a computer.
I hardly consider my question careless. I was merely asking a valid question. I thought we were discussing prospective anti-war presidential candidates. There are plenty of Senators and Congressmen that have consistantly voted against the war. My question should probably have read "did you have any viable candidates for PM during your last election"??
But .. since in your opinion my last question was careless.. and treated with such disdain, I won't be asking anymore of you. So have a great day and rest assured that I won't be taxing your awesome intelligence with careless questions in the future.
The entire Liberal Democrat Party has consistently voted against the presence of UK troops in Iraq. They have 62 Members of Parliament (MPs) in the House of Commons. The Labour Party has a significant anti-war camp. If you check http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/dreammp.php?id=219 you'll find around 80 MPs who fairly consistently voted against the presence of UK troops in Iraq in all 16 relevant divisions. Some of them are even Conservative and Unionist MPs.
Hey Spot..
Sorry I took so long to get back to you.. but then again, I do have a life that doesn't include a computer.
I hardly consider my question careless. I was merely asking a valid question. I thought we were discussing prospective anti-war presidential candidates. There are plenty of Senators and Congressmen that have consistantly voted against the war. My question should probably have read "did you have any viable candidates for PM during your last election"??
But .. since in your opinion my last question was careless.. and treated with such disdain, I won't be asking anymore of you. So have a great day and rest assured that I won't be taxing your awesome intelligence with careless questions in the future.
Feed your spirit by living near it -- Magic Hat Brewery bottle cap
Don't Hate Americans
I did not read all of the posts...just speaking to the original post...
It has been said that this is GB's war...lol, well you cant stop people from thinking what they want to... 6 - 10 people are against the war??? 60% of all americans or 6 out of the 10 people who were asked? Hmmmm... One wonders...lol Anyway,
I think the majority wish we did not have assets there..but we do and i think most people that i know support the effort we are doing. It certainly has not become a Vietnam yet.
It has been said that this is GB's war...lol, well you cant stop people from thinking what they want to... 6 - 10 people are against the war??? 60% of all americans or 6 out of the 10 people who were asked? Hmmmm... One wonders...lol Anyway,
I think the majority wish we did not have assets there..but we do and i think most people that i know support the effort we are doing. It certainly has not become a Vietnam yet.